Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
As I read it the EU wants Apple to release ACCESS to their hardware via ACCESS to their proprietary software. That's what Perm might mean by his statement. Access to iOS and iPadOS is what Apple doesn't want to grant.
Let EU citizens import the devices from the UK if they want them.
I doubt Apple's Board would let Cook do that, but a boycott would be an interesting move if it's even possible. Apple would still have to support products already sold and under warranty I assume. But Apple saying FU EU could be a cool move. I don't know the possible financial repercussions for Apple or employees of Apple business related companies.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Spotify for example, can use all of the new API’s that Apple has created and so can any other company (developer) if you choose to. They choose not to they want to use old API’s In short, they don’t want to upgrade, but I’m sure many other smaller European companies will.
https://www.algoriddim.com/ Algoriddim’s a German company headquartered in the EU has its act together why can’t Spotify? Competing on multiple platforms and not crying like a baby, and they don’t have four thousand people working for them yeah their programming department is miles ahead of Spotify. another company Reason Studios headquartered in Sweden is also miles ahead.
By the way, Walmart (a US company) does not do business in the EU and they seem to survive very well.
CheeseFreeze said: What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
LOL...desktop is a duopoly with higher prices for software than mobile and an operating system split that is less competitive than mobile. Desktop accessories are not less expensive than they are for mobile. Hardware for mobile has not improved at a slower rate than desktop.
I feel really bad that the EU is going to wind up with hobbled iOS functionality because giving anyone outside of Apple this level of access is a recipe for making iOS security more like android. Actually, no I don’t feel bad. Stupid is as stupid does.
On the one hand, I feel like a LOT of the commenters here did not really read the article or understand what the EC is asking for, particularly in the area of hardware access. But that’s not to say there is no concern with anything the EC is pushing.
As an example, it is a GOOD THING that other wallet and monetary programs have access to the NFC. It doesn’t hurt Apple Wallet in the slightest, but it gives people who prefer another system equal hardware access. If Apple ever actually prevented other companies from having access to the NFC, that was a dumb and anti-competitive move on its part.
Likewise, allowing third-party apps access to standard system software features, like accessibility features, is also a good thing. Google doesn’t have to worry about this because Android already allows this.
THAT SAID, Dewme and Charlessn both raise very valid concerns about potential for abuse as well as overreach. There absolutely IS an element of, as Charles put it, “forc[ing] innovative companies like Apple to hand over the family jewels to be shared with Europe's laggard corporations that now rely on being gifted IP that they didn't and couldn't develop on their own.”
One needs only look at the way the EC has bent over backwards to give Spotify — an EU company — special privileges while not caring about non-EU music service competitors.
In short, some of what the EC wants to accomplish is good for everyone. Some of the doors it is trying to open, however, are likely to be abused — and as long as it is EU companies doing the abusing, the EC doesn’t seem to be too concerned.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Apple operates in the greater Windows market and the greater Android market worldwide.
As much as it hurts being from Europe: Just continue, EU. I have one wir for you: FAFO. I bought the original iPhone on day 1, but I would understand if Apple at one point simply has enough and pulls out. Oh and by the way, you s**kers in the commission: please ensure interoperability between my toilet and my fridge, let’s be consequent, thank you.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
I think you are correct from what little I know about this. If Apple creates APIs that it has total control over, then there is a chance Apple would allow some greater access, hopefully only after scrutinizing the use cases very carefully and retaining the option to close that door if abused, even for a nanosecond.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Agreed. Unfortunately, knee-jerk reaction comments, often to deliberately misleading clickbait headlines, are the norm. In this case, though, the headline seemed pretty clear. Case in point: I read hundreds of comments regarding the exploding pagers that assumed the batteries were simply overloaded and feared for their own devices. People don't seem to think too hard these days.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Apple operates in the greater Windows market and the greater Android market worldwide.
Exactly right. iPhone only has about 25% market share for European mobile phones. So it is positively NOT the market now, or even remotely close. This is all about trying to prop up struggling European companies on the back of Apple innovation and IP. Here's a thought for the European commission: help EU companies to go innovate, build a better mousetrap and COMPETE. Mobile phones existed decades before Apple got into the business. And Blackberry pretty much owned the smartphone business in 2007 when Apple launched iPhone. But Apple unseated Blackberry, which no one thought was possible when iPhone launched, by developing and manufacturing a radically different phone that the market ultimately determined was a better choice. Apple has paid its dues, and then some, to EARN the market share that it has, and no EU commission should be setting the rules for how its products have to operate.
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Exactly. And that is why Apple (and others) are classified as gatekeepers.
Very few people here have even read the preamble to the DSA/DMA texts and go off barking up all the wrong trees.
Shepherding users into pens and voting the gates isn't stimulating competition.
Car manufacturers have no parallel realities when compared to Big Tech where, on mobile OS, there are just two systems.
Interoperability won't come overnight but users should not feel the imposed 'stickiness' (lock-in) of their digital lives. They should be free to mix and match and move freely between different options.
Why was iCloud the sole option for WhatsApp backups for so long?
Why couldn't Barcelona public transport users use their NFC equipped iPhones to validate journeys on the system for so long?
Why was Apple Wallet/Pay the only option on iPhones for so long?
Why did anti-steering even exist?
The answer is simply because Apple wanted things that way and could get away with it.
At least until the EU and other jurisdictions forced them to open up. The US looks to be following a similar path to solve these 'digital age' issues.
I haven't read through the text of the 'accesories' argument yet so I'll reserve judgement on that but Apple and others have a looooong history of abusing their dominant positions so leveling the playing field in that area might be a good move.
It's nothing new. The telecoms industry has long been forced to share hardware resources and allow users to take their phone numbers with them when they change carrier. That wasn't always the case.
On the one hand, I feel like a LOT of the commenters here did not really read the article or understand what the EC is asking for, particularly in the area of hardware access. But that’s not to say there is no concern with anything the EC is pushing.
As an example, it is a GOOD THING that other wallet and monetary programs have access to the NFC. It doesn’t hurt Apple Wallet in the slightest, but it gives people who prefer another system equal hardware access. If Apple ever actually prevented other companies from having access to the NFC, that was a dumb and anti-competitive move on its part.
Likewise, allowing third-party apps access to standard system software features, like accessibility features, is also a good thing. Google doesn’t have to worry about this because Android already allows this.
THAT SAID, Dewme and Charlessn both raise very valid concerns about potential for abuse as well as overreach. There absolutely IS an element of, as Charles put it, “forc[ing] innovative companies like Apple to hand over the family jewels to be shared with Europe's laggard corporations that now rely on being gifted IP that they didn't and couldn't develop on their own.”
One needs only look at the way the EC has bent over backwards to give Spotify — an EU company — special privileges while not caring about non-EU music service competitors.
In short, some of what the EC wants to accomplish is good for everyone. Some of the doors it is trying to open, however, are likely to be abused — and as long as it is EU companies doing the abusing, the EC doesn’t seem to be too concerned.
Thank you for chiming in and adding additional context. I can't help it that I'm unapologetic about supporting market competition where companies must compete to win customers based on the qualities of their products. Let the best innovator and product builder win and let the winners reap the spoils of their success. That is part of the domain that I've lived in for decades - but it is not the only foot I've had in this area.
The other foot I've been closely involved with is open standards. All of the open standards that I've worked on were born out of a desire for customers and middlemen to avoid getting locked into proprietary solutions held by one company or a consortium of companies working together. In every case, the standards creation body was built with representation from end-users, OEMs, non affiliated academia (subject matter and technology experts), and the companies who are already competing against one another in the market. But it was the end-users that wielded the biggest stick, directly I might add and not through a regulatory authority speaking on behalf of "customers" who were likely disgruntled smaller competitors and squeaky wheels. I only say that because I believe that if Apple's customers didn't love Apple products they'd have kicked Apple to the curb a long time ago, especially with the prices and supposed "lock-in" Apple commands. If there is a significant number of Apple customers out of the many millions of customers Apple has, I may think differently.
Rather than an authority declaring unilaterally that a particular vendor's proprietary solution/interface/API is now "open" for everyone to use, the standards body collectively defines the new open standard that is actually focused on solving a specific problem, both technically and equitably. Because all vendor members on open standards contribute to the standard, they have an incentive to play along come up with a migration path to the new standard. Of course the migration timelines varied, but in all of the standards I've worked on the new standard opened up the door for small vendors, technology suppliers, and service companies from outside of the original competitive landscape to create new businesses around building toolkits, migration services, and other enablers to allow new players to get into the market. Anecdotally I'd say open standards tend to help the "little guys" more than the big players. But that doesn't mean that the big players actually lose out. If they're smart, they can use it to their advantage.
The big players that embrace the new standards can now redirect the resources they were previously spending maintaining and defending their proprietary solutions to go after other more profitable parts of their businesses and create differentiation elsewhere. Basically, going along with the standards takes the areas of contention off the table which can save time and money. There doesn't have to be winners and losers, but the probability of achieving a win-win success comes down to how well the process is conceived and executed. If it's forced, punitive, involves threats and intimidation, and especially lawsuits, someone is going to feel like they've lost and have been unfairly punished for trying to run their business in the best interests of their shareholders and stakeholders.
The challenge of open standards is the reality that it takes a lot of time and effort. Knowing this is possible, there may be heavy handed regulators in the EU who want to short-circuit the open standards approach by declaring that Apple's implementations or private interfaces ARE the open standards and demanding that Apple relinquish control over their intellectual property. Is this fair? Hell no. Is it done in the spirit of cooperation? Nope. Is it heavy handed? Absolutely. But if you're focused on the goal with little or no regard to the process of getting there, getting ugly can be effective. When the EU has Apple by the throat and Apple is not willing to suffer the consequences of an authoritarian dictate they may and so far have always succumbed. It's still the EU's playpen. If the EU wants to evict Apple or any other vendor from their playpen they most certainly can do it, especially when there is no concern for retaliation.
I have also been involved with an industry initiative in a different problem domain that went the other way. The dominant player decided to not play along with the kumbaya game at all. They were quite happy to keep things the way that made them successful. No matter how many of the little guys teamed up against the dominant player, the dominant player could crush them all at any time simply by opening an outlet within a certain radius of the little guy's businesses. Someone already mentioned their name earlier and their strategy was and still is "Everyday Low Prices." No gimmicks, no fancy dances or free turkeys at Thanksgiving, they just go for the jugular by competing on price and fine tuning their supplier control with microscopic precision. Most businesses hate competing on price, but one very large business has no problem at all competing on price because they know exactly how to win that game.
I'm not wearing Apple blinders. I've seen both sides of this same situation and know there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. But I also know that doing it the wrong way using brute force can be more expedient as long as you can live with the turmoil and downstream consequences.
I’m surprised Appleinsider didn’t pick this up. A US government official recently suggested that Apple have Intel make chips for them, this is what you get when the government becomes involved in things that it knows nothing about.
I am confused – just what is the EU asking? iPhones are already compatible with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and you can easily pair any Bluetooth device with your iPhone. They are also Qi compatible, So wireless charging isn’t an issue either. I’m trying to think of a device that I can’t pair with my iPhone and I can’t. I suppose maybe an android watch?
Verstager is total moron. There is ZERO chance of Apple ever releasing its propriety OS for either the iPhone or iPad to 3rd party vendors.
I would agree, but that's not what's being asked of them. As I'm reading it, Apple/Google will have to allow 3rd party vendors to call on/use/access the hardware on an iPhone or Android phone, to facilitate connections. This is not about installing iOS on some third-party product.
Finally someone who actually read the article and doesn’t respond with the default American “EU sucks! I love Apple like my mommy” reaction.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
Apple has just 22% of the smartphone market in the EU. So how can you justify saying "Apple IS the market now."
I've been arguing that for 5-10 years. Glad to see others picking up on it in this thread.
There's actually another way for Apple to move forward here. Apple could pay Google to support Android on all iPhones sold in Europe. Europe would lose its access to iOS, but Apple would be in full compliance, because Google will always comply.
Google would like more Android customers like this.
By the way, Walmart (a US company) does not do business in the EU and they seem to survive very well.
That is an ostrich strategy. Boeing/Tesla/Microsoft/Coca Cola wouldn't be doing fine if they stopped selling to EU. Even GM is returning to EU. Walmart failed in Germany, Japan, and UK due to better competitors. Doing fine but could do better.
Apple should improve connectivity for watches? Do they mean they want iPhones to send notifications to Android watches? What next? iPhones to send notifications to European refrigerators?
Comments
I doubt Apple's Board would let Cook do that, but a boycott would be an interesting move if it's even possible. Apple would still have to support products already sold and under warranty I assume. But Apple saying FU EU could be a cool move. I don't know the possible financial repercussions for Apple or employees of Apple business related companies.
What the EU is asking is not to turn iOS into Linux.
What is happening right now will eventually happen in the US as well; allowing third party stores, allowing users to truly choose between vendors of services (e.g same access to APIs by iCloud, Dropbox, etc). It’s to allow for competition.
Don’t forget: Apple doesn’t operate in the market. They ARE the market now.
https://www.algoriddim.com/ Algoriddim’s a German company headquartered in the EU has its act together why can’t Spotify? Competing on multiple platforms and not crying like a baby, and they don’t have four thousand people working for them yeah their programming department is miles ahead of Spotify. another company Reason Studios headquartered in Sweden is also miles ahead.
By the way, Walmart (a US company) does not do business in the EU and they seem to survive very well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart Page down to operating divisions, worldwide, interesting map.
Very few people here have even read the preamble to the DSA/DMA texts and go off barking up all the wrong trees.
Shepherding users into pens and voting the gates isn't stimulating competition.
Car manufacturers have no parallel realities when compared to Big Tech where, on mobile OS, there are just two systems.
Interoperability won't come overnight but users should not feel the imposed 'stickiness' (lock-in) of their digital lives. They should be free to mix and match and move freely between different options.
Why was iCloud the sole option for WhatsApp backups for so long?
Why couldn't Barcelona public transport users use their NFC equipped iPhones to validate journeys on the system for so long?
Why was Apple Wallet/Pay the only option on iPhones for so long?
Why did anti-steering even exist?
The answer is simply because Apple wanted things that way and could get away with it.
At least until the EU and other jurisdictions forced them to open up. The US looks to be following a similar path to solve these 'digital age' issues.
I haven't read through the text of the 'accesories' argument yet so I'll reserve judgement on that but Apple and others have a looooong history of abusing their dominant positions so leveling the playing field in that area might be a good move.
It's nothing new. The telecoms industry has long been forced to share hardware resources and allow users to take their phone numbers with them when they change carrier. That wasn't always the case.
The other foot I've been closely involved with is open standards. All of the open standards that I've worked on were born out of a desire for customers and middlemen to avoid getting locked into proprietary solutions held by one company or a consortium of companies working together. In every case, the standards creation body was built with representation from end-users, OEMs, non affiliated academia (subject matter and technology experts), and the companies who are already competing against one another in the market. But it was the end-users that wielded the biggest stick, directly I might add and not through a regulatory authority speaking on behalf of "customers" who were likely disgruntled smaller competitors and squeaky wheels. I only say that because I believe that if Apple's customers didn't love Apple products they'd have kicked Apple to the curb a long time ago, especially with the prices and supposed "lock-in" Apple commands. If there is a significant number of Apple customers out of the many millions of customers Apple has, I may think differently.
Rather than an authority declaring unilaterally that a particular vendor's proprietary solution/interface/API is now "open" for everyone to use, the standards body collectively defines the new open standard that is actually focused on solving a specific problem, both technically and equitably. Because all vendor members on open standards contribute to the standard, they have an incentive to play along come up with a migration path to the new standard. Of course the migration timelines varied, but in all of the standards I've worked on the new standard opened up the door for small vendors, technology suppliers, and service companies from outside of the original competitive landscape to create new businesses around building toolkits, migration services, and other enablers to allow new players to get into the market. Anecdotally I'd say open standards tend to help the "little guys" more than the big players. But that doesn't mean that the big players actually lose out. If they're smart, they can use it to their advantage.
The big players that embrace the new standards can now redirect the resources they were previously spending maintaining and defending their proprietary solutions to go after other more profitable parts of their businesses and create differentiation elsewhere. Basically, going along with the standards takes the areas of contention off the table which can save time and money. There doesn't have to be winners and losers, but the probability of achieving a win-win success comes down to how well the process is conceived and executed. If it's forced, punitive, involves threats and intimidation, and especially lawsuits, someone is going to feel like they've lost and have been unfairly punished for trying to run their business in the best interests of their shareholders and stakeholders.
The challenge of open standards is the reality that it takes a lot of time and effort. Knowing this is possible, there may be heavy handed regulators in the EU who want to short-circuit the open standards approach by declaring that Apple's implementations or private interfaces ARE the open standards and demanding that Apple relinquish control over their intellectual property. Is this fair? Hell no. Is it done in the spirit of cooperation? Nope. Is it heavy handed? Absolutely. But if you're focused on the goal with little or no regard to the process of getting there, getting ugly can be effective. When the EU has Apple by the throat and Apple is not willing to suffer the consequences of an authoritarian dictate they may and so far have always succumbed. It's still the EU's playpen. If the EU wants to evict Apple or any other vendor from their playpen they most certainly can do it, especially when there is no concern for retaliation.
I have also been involved with an industry initiative in a different problem domain that went the other way. The dominant player decided to not play along with the kumbaya game at all. They were quite happy to keep things the way that made them successful. No matter how many of the little guys teamed up against the dominant player, the dominant player could crush them all at any time simply by opening an outlet within a certain radius of the little guy's businesses. Someone already mentioned their name earlier and their strategy was and still is "Everyday Low Prices." No gimmicks, no fancy dances or free turkeys at Thanksgiving, they just go for the jugular by competing on price and fine tuning their supplier control with microscopic precision. Most businesses hate competing on price, but one very large business has no problem at all competing on price because they know exactly how to win that game.
I'm not wearing Apple blinders. I've seen both sides of this same situation and know there's a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. But I also know that doing it the wrong way using brute force can be more expedient as long as you can live with the turmoil and downstream consequences.
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/us-govt-pushes-nvidia-and-apple-to-use-intels-foundries-department-of-commerce-secretary-raimondo-makes-appeal-for-us-based-chip-production Ridiculous….. didn’t Intel already screw up? The word no and a fork in the road is coming for Apple particularly the fork in the road.
if you read the comment section a quarter of the people think it’s a good idea despite Intel’s track record over the last 15 years.
apple needs to put their foot down. Stop aquiescing.
There's actually another way for Apple to move forward here. Apple could pay Google to support Android on all iPhones sold in Europe. Europe would lose its access to iOS, but Apple would be in full compliance, because Google will always comply.
WIN-WIN-WIN.
Walmart failed in Germany, Japan, and UK due to better competitors. Doing fine but could do better.